Wave 5 (wf_7bce6c28-9f4, 78 agents, 11.4M tok across both halves): 40 targets
-> 36 agent-MATCH, 2 refuted, 2 NEAR, 0 FAIL, 0 drafts lost -> 29 BANKED.
RESUMED THROUGH A USAGE-LIMIT OUTAGE. The first run lost 40 agents mid-wave
(18 cracks + 22 verifiers). Resuming with byte-identical args replayed the 22
completed cracks from cache and re-ran only the dead ones — a limit outage
costs the unfinished work only.
⚠ THE INTERRUPTED RESULT WAS MISLEADING AND THAT IS MY BUG: crack_wave.js
classifies anything without verdict_check.confirmed as `refuted`, so 22 drafts
whose VERIFIER DIED read as 22 refutations. A dead oracle must not be
indistinguishable from a negative verdict — split `refuted` from `unverified`.
Two prior-seeded agents did better than asked:
- func_8017F2D4: found the prior draft SURVIVED in .run/wave3/, recovered it,
then gated it IN SITU — spliced into the real destination TU, full pinned
triple, masked-diff of the function out of the whole-TU object: 0 mismatched,
279/279. That closes the §52b gap instead of trusting a standalone match. It
also byte-confirmed the x5 reach on three symbol-remapped siblings and fixed
the prior notes' TU pointer (they named a file holding only a caller).
- func_8017FFD0: VALIDATED its predecessor's claim rather than assuming it —
built a no-barrier variant and reproduced the predicted -7 ins drift exactly,
proving the __asm__ __volatile__("") cross-jump barrier is a real lever.
Bank rate across five waves: 67% -> 79% -> 69% -> 68% -> 73%.
A workflow script is plain JS; the cookbook citation I added used markdown
backticks inside a template string, which terminated it. Caught at launch
(parse error, 0 agents, 0 tokens) rather than mid-wave.
19 note-sets, 131 claims, one skeptic each, vetted against a cookbook that
already held §162/§163/§164 from this same campaign:
NEW 8 · SHARPENS 39 · COVERED 64 · UNSOUND 20
byte-probed 61 · single-instance 43 · asserted 27
COVERED+UNSOUND is 64%, up from §164's 57% — the duplicate rate RISES as the
knowledge base grows. That is the argument for harvesting after EVERY wave: a
wave launched before its predecessor's harvest lands re-derives laws already on
disk. This one was banked while wave-4 propagation was still committing.
THE PASS CORRECTED ITS OWN PREDECESSOR. §165-01 BOUNDS §163a, banked hours
earlier today. §163a says "block scope is a conflict SOLVENT" — byte-proven,
but on a DATA symbol. It does NOT reach an ARITY conflict: there the two decls
are COMPATIBLE (cc1 emits no `conflicting types` for scope to downgrade) and
the failure is call-vs-composite in convert_arguments (c-typeck.c:1623), which
a `()` declaration cannot defuse at ANY scope. The diagnostic word picks the
lever: `conflicting types` -> §163a's solvent; `too many arguments` -> cast the
call site (§17a-1/§161c) or replace the host prototype.
§165z records the 20 refuted claims. cookbook_index.py: 505 sections.
Wave 4 added 105 (27 cracks + 27/27 families propagated). Fleet 94.9% instr /
89.4% distinct / 96.44% fn-count. R22 clean-fleet run 7x this session, 213/213
every time.
Bank rate now measured four times: 67% -> 79% -> 69% -> 68%. Prior-notes
seeding 10/12 (was 7/9). func_8017C294 — the x16 family, largest item on the
board — is NEAR at 2 ins after three seeded attempts (18 -> 11 -> 2).
Also records the 4th comment-blindness defect and its blast radius (one draft
comment refused a binary's stub oracle, failed 5 later binaries, and left
drafts spliced in src/ so 17 re-gates read a poisoned tree as 0/17), and that
the wave harness now lives in tools/wave/ with its contracts written down.
The wave script encodes contracts paid for in real failures (per-agent output
dirs after wave 2 lost 21 verified drafts; sha1-last verification; prior-notes
seeding at 7/9 then 10/12; size routing). It was living only in the workflow
scratch dir, so each wave rebuilt it from memory — which is how the cookbook
citation list went stale: it still named only §162 while §163 and §164 (87 more
entries) had been banked in between.
Updated the citation list to §160-§164 and pointed agents at §164z, the 28
REFUTED claims, so they do not re-derive a disproved mechanism.
Drew T